And when we look at countries such as Japan or Australia or Denmark (to pick some First World countries at random), and we find they spend about half as much on health care that we do, and have better outcomes, it seems to me the empirical question is answered.
Yes, we can imagine a fee for service model of health care, and predict that it will outperform a single payer health care system, deliver better outcomes for less money. But when we compare our actually existing system to other systems, we find that this is not the case.
Or, are you happy to spend twice as much on health care, because it’s worth paying extra if that means that underserving people won’t get free health care?
I don’t know if you are wise or wiser or compassionate. Never met you.If you can save more lives spending your money they way you want than I can save with mine spending it the way I want, than I have no problem with that.
But the Republican party of the last 30 years I do know something about. They promised us better economy, better jobs, etc. if we only reduced taxes for the wealthy because it would trickle down. I thought it was a bunch of hooey at the time, and actual experience is that it is in fact a lot of hooey. A greedy money grab. Productivity has continued to soar, yet wages over that time are down, not up, and unemployment is much higher. The promises that were made did not materialize. As David Stockman, the Reagan budget director, has said, it the promises were just a Trojan Horse to get the wealthy huge tax breaks. I don’t think that Republican policy is in any respect Christian. It teaches contempt for those most needing protection and contempt for government.
The only Republican I can think of who gives to charities to help protect the non-wealthy is Bill Gates.
In other words, Modern Liberalism is the real tribe that exists to let people do what they will – as long as it is within the laws as they stand. Conservatives keep trying to make more and more laws to manage our lives – especially on a state by state basis.
Do Conservatives have no sympathy for the weak? Is sympathy a bad thing? So the “Compassionate Conservative” was just a trend that came and went?
I know that we Americans are not all alike, but I had thought that as a whole, we are generally as kind and understanding of the underdog as other countries. Have you not done anything to give someone a foot up? Do you believe that all weakness is a sign of unworthiness? Is that typical of Conservatives?
I guess that’s extreme social liberalism, if filtered by someone with a non-universal belief-set in the context of a minority* religion, who thinks inflexibly and with explicable immaturity, who is incapable of thinking outside his belief system in order to realise that many of the things he takes to be axiomatic are actually debatable and, indeed, often non-issues outside that belief system.
However for the rest of us in the world, the assertion is a crock.
(Choosing one non-issue in Germany to represent Europe is also ridiculous, whether his argument were right or wrong.)
If you’d said “compassionate liberal” in the same context here, as a comparison to W’s Compassionate Conservative B.S. I’d have responded entirely differently, I hope you realize, but I’ll stick to an argument that compassionate is not redundant with liberal.
The first time I heard W say he was a compassionate conservative, I hoped he might come on out and say he doesn’t have the morals to put anyone in jail for the same things he did, like smoke pot or have a toot of cocaine, and instead say the ruined life hypothesis of the drug warriors is a fraud, because drug users can indeed succeed to the point of becoming President as evidenced by his anecdote, but he never gave the anecdote, and I became disillusioned with the concept of compassionate anything in government.
I do think I was careful to concede most liberals are in fact compassionate; to the best of their ability to understand compassion, at any rate.
If you were trying to demonstrate the narrow Americo-centrism of your experience you couldn’t have done so more acutely than by assuming lax abortion laws are a prime indicator of extreme social liberalism.
First you hijack a thread. Second, you’re starting an argument where none need exist. Third, you’re aggressively challenging me when I’m working to be impartial, even if giving my own views in answering the OP.
Yes, that’s impolite, and poor behavior. If you would like to start a new thread, feel free. If it’s interesting I may join you.
And then Zoe immediately starts on the same line while taking the same into hyperbole as well.
Huh? I didn’t even describe liberal economics] (I can if anyone wants me to denote major liberal economic ideas), and I find no mention of conservative economics even hinted in my posts.
Economically we are a lot further right. But socially, environmental matters had a lot more cross party agreement, as well issues like abortion. Roe v. Wade would not be decided for the first time today, but the Court back then was far more open to social ideas as a general rule. See their striking down of virtually all death penalty statutes back then. Or the gradual elimination of search and seizure protections. Yes, there will be counter-examples, but the Republican party no longer has a liberal or moderate wing, where they did back then.
shakabroh, it seems to me that this thread got off to a false start due to people not realizing that you’re not from the US, and construing the statements you attribute to your father as though he was a right-leaning Evangelical Christian American.
It might help everyone to place your OP in a more useful context if you would actually identify the country you and your father live in. Always assuming that it is safe for you to do so.